Shouldn't the electric company be held liable? They have the same rights as people now. They should have the same responsibilities. A good lawyer will argue that there is technology that would cut the power if something happens to the lines. Or they can cite the thousands of miles of underground power lines that don't harm innocent rescuers. The electric company had to know that running 40000 volts through electric lines right next to a road way was risky. Yet they chose to do nothing about it.

Bathia_Mapes:According to this article he was speeding and lost control, which is what caused him to slam into the light pole and fire hydrant.

So, not so much being charged for being stupid, but driving so fast that he lost control of his vehicle.

No, he's being charged for nothing he actually did. He may have been stupid, but he didn't ask anyone to rescue him. I don't care if a dozen people died trying to get him out of the car; he isn't responsible for their deaths.

Harry Freakstorm:Shouldn't the electric company be held liable? They have the same rights as people now. They should have the same responsibilities. A good lawyer will argue that there is technology that would cut the power if something happens to the lines. Or they can cite the thousands of miles of underground power lines that don't harm innocent rescuers. The electric company had to know that running 40000 volts through electric lines right next to a road way was risky. Yet they chose to do nothing about it.

Let's not forget about the puddle. Whoever left that conducting liquid laying around has a role in this.

If the women were walking down the sidewalk when the accident occurred, and the power line fell and electrocuted them, then yes, by all means charge the driver. However, charging him for the actions of two women (however altruistic they were) is a miscarriage of justice, in my opinion. They, of their own free will and with conscious action, ran to their deaths. If he had driven off a cliff, and two people died attempting to jump 100' down to rescue him, would he be charged with their deaths?

Harry Freakstorm:Shouldn't the electric company be held liable? They have the same rights as people now. They should have the same responsibilities. A good lawyer will argue that there is technology that would cut the power if something happens to the lines. Or they can cite the thousands of miles of underground power lines that don't harm innocent rescuers. The electric company had to know that running 40000 volts through electric lines right next to a road way was risky. Yet they chose to do nothing about it.

ongbok:And I agree with his lawyer on this when he said that they should have known the dangers of downed power lines. It is pounded in our heads over and over never to approach downed power lines.

People get tunnel vision. Watching out for downed lines and other hazards are things beat into the heads of emergency responders in training and you've still got to watch out for someone focusing on the incident and not seeing that line laying in the street.

The average civilian's training is Louie the lightning bug. He/she isn't likely to remember that in the heat of the moment.

As far as any safetys go, I'm sure more informed farkers can add detail but there are breakers. The thing is, you can't ever assume the line's dead. IIRC, sometimes lines will go dead only to get re-energized as the system tries to see if the problem is self-resolving (say a squirrel committing suicide or other temporary problem). In short, you can't trust that the line is dead until the guy from the power company tells you it is dead.

And based on the story as written, the charge is a huge overreach. I would have no problem if the guy had been drunk or engaged in some other activity that could have warranted arrest, but speeding? That's a bridge too far.

The guy was speeding, like double the speed limit, and passing traffic in a middle turn lane, all because he was impatient to get to the gym.Driving that recklessly, a car accident with possible death of bystanders IS a reasonable foreseeable occurence. That the deaths were actually a secondary occurence of the crash (death by electrocution from the downed power lines) rather than from blunt force injuries of the primary collision is really the only thing being argued here. The guy is still incredibly negligent, and his actions started a series of events that led to the deaths. One might have some more sympathy if he had been rushing to the hospital in a life-or-death situation like a dying child in the front seat, but this @$$hole was just late for a gym workout. Hope there's a nice gym in the prison.

TuteTibiImperes:Lsherm: Bathia_Mapes: According to this article he was speeding and lost control, which is what caused him to slam into the light pole and fire hydrant.

So, not so much being charged for being stupid, but driving so fast that he lost control of his vehicle.

Yeah, but it's a royal stretch to assume that death by electrocution is a foreseeable occurrence caused by negligence while operating a motor vehicle.

I agree. They approached the car of their own free will, and while their deaths are tragic, he shouldn't be held criminally liable for them.

Losing control of a car while speeding and bystanders being killed is a foreseeable risk of driving too fast. Whether he hit them directly or they died trying to help him after the crash, it was still his actions that caused their deaths, so I can understand it being taken to court to let a jury decide whether criminal sanctions should apply in this case.